^ 


uu\^ 


\ 


s 


Charles  R,  Hemphill 


Chriet'e  Testimony  to  the  Mosaic  Authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch 


'\. 


^m  I 


iyinmkT 


^k  <[>>• 


\7 


BS2387 
.H49 


\'»?. 


BS2'5 
■H4-9 


TV   O-iXlCiU    JL^lUIdiV 


CHRIST'S    TESTIMONY 


TO    THE 


MOSAIC    AUTHORSHIP 


OF  THE 


PEN^r^TEUCH 


INAU6URAL  ADDRESS  DELIVERED  SEPTEMBER  19,  1883, 

By  rev.  CHARLES  R.^ HEMPHILL, 

Professor  of  Biblical  Literature  in  the  Theological  Seminary 
at  Columbia,  S.   C. 


COLUMBIA,  S.  C. 

PRINTED   AT   THE   PRESBYTERIAN   PUBLISHING    HOUSE. 

1884. 


//f_/Vi    C^rrrL^fz^-rt^-e'-*^^       ^/ 


A 


From   the  Southern    h-eshyterion   Reriew.  Jannary,    1884. 

CHRIST'S    TESTIMONY/^' 


DEC  14  1925 

TO    THK 


Inbfeiiig  formally  inducted  into  the  Professorship  of  Biblical 
Literature  in  this  Seminary,  it  is  but  natural  that  I  should 
find  ray  thoughts  recurring  to  the  veteran  scholar  who  for  so 
many  years  adorned  this  chair  by  his  learning  and  piety.  A 
student  from  his  earliest  years,  and  coming  to  his  work  with 
ample  furniture  in  Oriental  scholarship,  attained  under  the 
stimulating  instruction  of  the  famous  Moses  Stuart,  Dr.  Howe, 
for  mure  than  fifty  years,  devoted  his  energies  to  enlarging 
his  knowledge  and  broadening  his  views  of  Biblical  Litera- 
ture. To  recount  Dr.  Howe's  toils  and  sacrifices  for  the  Semi- 
nary, would  be  to  tell  a  familiar  story.  To  him  I  believe  we  owe 
its  survival  to  this  good  hour,  pressed,  as  it  has  several  times  been, 
by  dangers  that  threatened  its  destruction.  Laborious  to  a  fault, 
and  fiiithful  to  duty,  he  wrought  his  very  life  into  these  walls  and 
into  the  hearts  of  the  hundreds  of  students  who  here  listened  to 
his  voice.  Profound  learning  was  veiled  by  a  rare  modesty,  and 
transfused  with  a  deep  personal  love  for  the  Saviour.  The  sim- 
plicity of  his  nature,  the  depth  of  his  piety,  the  kindliness  of  his 
heart,  are  the  traits  which  we  who  knew  him  associate  most  of  all 
with  his  memory.  To  have  been  a  pupil  of  Dr.  Howe  is  a  bless- 
ing to  any  man  !     It  is  a  high  privilege  that  I  was   not  only  his 

^Inaugural  Address  delivered  on  September  19,  1883,  before  the  Board 
of  Directors  of  Columbia  Seminary,  by  Rev.  C.  R.  Hemphill,  Professor 
of  Biblical  Literature,  and  published  at  the  request  of  the  Board. 


pupil,  but  associated  with  him  for  several  j^ears  in  the  teaching 
of  his  department.  The  reflection  that  I  succeed  Dr.  Howe  and 
hold  the  chair  which  binds  his  name  to  the  institution  he  loved 
even  unto  death,  enhances  the  feeling  of  responsibility  inevitable 
to  me  under  these  circumstances. 

It  is  not  out  of  place  to  assure  the  Directors  and  friends  of  the 
Seminary  that  I  take  up  these  duties  with  some  adequate  concep- 
tion of  what  lies  before  me.  To  exaggerate  the  importance  of 
the  studies  embraced  within  the  scope  of  Biblical  Literature,  would 
scarcely  be  possible.  It  deals  with  the  foundations  and  gives  the 
principles  of  any  Christian  theology  which  has  a  right  to  the 
name.  The  Canon,  Biblical  Criticism,  Exegesis,  with  all  that 
these  imply,  are  the  subjects  of  this  chair.  In  accordance  with 
the  Protestant  principle  of  the  absolute  dependence  of  theology, 
in  all  its  phases,  on  the  Scriptures,  these  studies  are,  at  any  time, 
essential,  but  they  now  have  a  special  importance.  It  is  well 
known  that  controversies  of  vast  import  to  the  Christian  religion 
now  traverse  the  field  of  this  department,  and  it  is  probable  that 
conflicts,  of  which  only  faint  echoes  have  heretofore  reached  us, 
will  rage  for  some  time  within  the  English,  Scotch,  and  American 
Churches.  Dr.  Green  of  Princeton,  Avho  is  by  no  means  an 
alarmist,  has  recently  said  "that  all  the  signs  of  the  times  indi- 
cate that  the  American  Church,  and,  in  fact,  the  whole  of  English- 
speaking  Christendom,  is  upon  the  eve  of  an  agitation  upon  the 
vital  and  fundamental  question  of  the  inspiration  and  infallibility 
of  the  Bible,  such  as  it  has  never  known  before."  Every  one 
may  detect  symptoms  of  this  agitation  in  books  recently  pub- 
lished, and  in  articles  in  reviews  and  newspapers,  dealing  with 
the  critical  study  of  the  Scriptures.  To  meet  the  exigencies  of 
this  critical  study  of  the  Bible  calls  for  such  scholarship,  such 
piety,  such  judgment,  that  I  may  be  pardoned  for  expressing  my 
own  sense  of  deficiencies  for  the  Avork  intrusted  to  me. 

With  God's  help  I  shall  earnestly  and  faithfully  seek  to  instruct 
my  pupils  in  the  truth,  and  provide  them  with  the  means  of  de- 
fending the  word  of  God. 

In  thinking  of  a  suitable  topic  for  this  occasion,  it  was  but 
natural  that  the  stirring  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 


teuch  should  suggest  itself.  The  Pentateuch  has  engaged  the 
earnest  attention  of  distinguished  scholars  for  many  years,  and  it 
is  unnecessary  to  rehearse  the  history  of  the  rise  and  progress  of 
the  various  critical  views.  A  clear  and  accurate  account  of  these 
may  be  found  in  an  article  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  for  Janu- 
ary, 1883,  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Briggs.  It  is  enough  to  say  that 
the  latest  hypothesis,  known  as  the  Reuss- Graf  theory,  completely 
revolutionises  the  common  view  of  Jewish  history,  and,  by  conse- 
quence, the  common  view  among  Christians  of  the  nature  of 
revelation  and  inspiration.  It  is  my  belief  that  here  we  have 
the  logical  outcome  of  the  methods  of  treating  the  Scriptures 
whicli  have  prevailed  among  rationalistic  and  semi-rationalistic 
scholars.  The  prominent  advocates  of  this  hypothesis  do  not 
hesitate  to  say  that  they  proceed  on  the  naturalistic  basis,  and  on 
this  basis  it  might  have  some  claim  to  consideration  ;  but  the 
effort  to  combine  evangelical  views  with  this  hypothesis  must  be 
pronounced  a  signal  failure. 

The  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  too  large  a  question  to  be 
handled  in  more  than  one  of  its  phases  in  this  Address.  It  is 
hardly  an  exaggeration  to  say  that  the  literature  of  this  subject 
constitutes  a  library  in  itself.  Nor  do  I  think  it  at  all  needful 
that  a  man  acquaint  himself  with  these  minute  investigations  and 
discussions  of  critics,  in  oixler  to  reach  a  perfectly  satisfactory 
and  rational  belief.  If  the  New  Testament  writers  have  uttered 
a  decisive  opinion,  then  most  biblical  students  will  rest  their  be- 
lief on  this  basis,  rather  than  on  tlie  shifting  sands  of  opposing 
schools  of  criticism.  This,  we  may  be  confident,  will  commend 
itself  to  the  common  sense  and  practical  character  of  American 
Christians.  If  it  can  be  shown  that  the  New  Testament  renders 
no  decision  in  the  premises,  then  we  are  thi'own  back  on  the  re- 
sults of  the  Higher  Criticism.  And  I  may  be  allowed  to  say 
that  I  have  no  fears  of  the  ultimate  findings  of  the  Higher 
Criticism.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the  most  conspicuous  students 
of  this  science  have  been  more  or  less  rationalistic  in  their  views. 
On  this  account  the  science  itself  has  fallen  into  reproach  among 
Christian  people,  and  is  regarded  by  many  as  necessarily  scep- 
tical in  its  tendencies.     The  truth  is,   that  it  is  by  the   Higher 


Criticism  that  we  settle  the  literury  claims  of  all  books,  the  Bible 
among  them,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  show  that  the  rationalistic 
critics  have  employed  false  principles,  or  made  a  wrong  applica- 
tion of  true  principles.  We  need  more  of  such  work  in  this  direc- 
tion as  has  been  done  in  this  country  by  Dr.  Green  in  his  relentless 
tracking  of  Colenso,  Kuenen,  and  Robertson  Smith;  by  Dr.  Willis 
J.  Beecher,  in  his  admirable  exposure  of  the  logical  methods  of 
Kuenen ;  and  by  Dr.  Rufus  P.  Stebbins,  in  his  valuable  study  of 
the  Pentateuch, 

But  while  I  would  give  free  course  to  this  method  of  settling 
the  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  I  desire  to  see 
what  light  is  thrown  on  the  matter  by  the  New  Testament.  This 
method  is  not  adopted  for  the  purpose  of  stifling  discussion  or 
forestalling  critical  investigation,  but  in  the  belief  that  this  is  the 
safest  method  possible  by  which  to  reach  the  truth,  if  it  be  found 
that  the  New  Testament  writers  have  delivered  an  explicit  testi- 
mony. To  narrow  the  question,  and  to  present  the  investigation 
in  the  most  simple  and  intelligible  manner,  I  shall  exclude  all 
testimony  but  that  of  our  Lord,  and  shall  ask  you  to  follow  me  in 
an  effort  to  sift  his  testimony,  and  to  discover  what  opinion,  if  any, 
he  held  and  taught.  But  before  undertaking  this,  it  may  be  well 
to  meet  certain  objections  that  are  offered  to  our  accepting  his 
decision  as  final,  even  if  it  should  be  found  that  he  delivered  a 
definite  opinion.  , 

It  is  objected  that  he  was  ignorant  of  some  things,  and  that 
this  may  have  been  included  in  that  category.  There  is  no  need 
to  discuss  what  is  implied  in  our  Lord's  increasing  in  knowledge 
and  in  his  being  ignorant  of  one  fact  at  least,  viz.,  the  day  of 
final  judgment.  It  is  sufiicient  to  say  that,  however  limited  his 
knowledge  was  beyond  the  sphere  of  religious  truth  (and  of  these 
limits  we  can  assert  nothing),  it  has  never  been  shown  that  he 
taught  an  error  as  true.  It  is  one  thing  to  be  ignorant  of  a  sub- 
ject, and  to  keep  silence ;  it  is  a  very  different  thing  to  be  igno- 
rant of  a  subject,  and  yet  presume  to  teach  it.  Undoubtedly, 
the  pretence  to  knowledge  where  there  is  ignorance,  is  not  merely 
a  weakness,  but  a  sin  ;  and  giving  a  definite  opinion  on  a  matter 
of  which  one  is   ignorant   is  sinful.      This   objection,    therefore, 


strikes  at  the  centre  of  Christ's  chiims,  which  are  based  on  his 
sinlessness,  in  imputing  to  him  that  he  taught  a  definite  view  on 
a  }3oint  of  which  he  kncAv  nothing. 

It  is  objected,  again,  that  even  if  our  Lord  does  seem  to  have 
delivered  a  positive  opinion,  we  are  not  compelled  to  accept  it,  for 
the  reason  that  he  did  not  come  to  settle  the  questions  of  Biblical 
Criticism,  any  more  than  he  undertook  to  teach  us  physical  sci- 
ence. The  plausibility  of  this  idea  is  removed  by  the  reflection 
that  we  are  to  decide  what  he  intended  to  teach,  not  by  some  cri- 
terion of  our  own,  but  by  what  he  really  taught.  It  must  be 
admitted  that  Christ  vouches  for  the  historical  character  of  the 
Pentateuch.  This  is  one  of  the  topics  of  Biblical  Criticism.  He 
therefore  taught  this  part  of  Biblical  Criticism;  and  if  this,  why 
not  the  one  under  discussion  ?  It  is  easy  to  see  that  the  objec- 
tion is  akin  to  the  one  first  mentioned  ;  and  we  would  be  shut  up 
to  the  admission  that  our  Lord  entered  a  sphere  in  which  he  had 
no  right  to  speak,  and  uttered  himself,  it  may  be,  erroneously, 
where  he  ought  to  have  kept  silence. 

The  most  formidable  objection  is  put  in  this  shape :  Granted 
that  our  Lord  does  seem  to  teach  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch,  yet  in  this  he  may  have  accommodated  himself  to 
current  views,  without  endorsing  them  as  true.  To  have  opposed 
the  Jewish  belief  in  the  authorship  by  Moses,  would  have  excited 
their  prejudice  against  the  higher  truth  he  wished  to  impress. 
The  subject  of  accommodation  in  the  Scriptures  is  confessedly 
difficult.  In  any  communication  from  the  Infinite  to  the  finite, 
the  form  of  the  revelation  must  be  accommodated  to  the  languao-e 
and  mental  constitution  of  the  creature.  It  is  clear,  however, 
that  there  is  no  accommodation  in  the  sense  that  the  Scriptures 
teach  error  on  any  subject.  By  the  abuse  of  this  principle  there 
are  men  who  maintain  that  our  Lord  teaches  nothing  as  to  the 
personality  of  Satan  and  the  existence  of  evil  spirits  ;  nothing  as 
to  the  atonement  and  other  vital  doctrines.  Now,  whatever  else 
may  be  true,  and  whether  we  can  always  formulate  the  limitations 
of  this  principle  or  not,  it  seems  certain  that  we  must  stop  at  the 
point  where  by  this  principle  Christ  or  an  inspired  writer  would 
be  made  to  teach  positive   error.     In   other  words,   while  Christ 


may  have  been  under  no  obligation  to  correct  cun-ent  erroneous 
views  on  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch,  if  such  there  were,  yet 
he  was  under  an  obligation  not  to  teach  an  erroneous  view  by  ex- 
plicit statement,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  from  his- 
explicit  statements.  The  same  argument  that  prevents  us  from 
denying  that  he  taught  the  personality  of  Satan  and  the  posses- 
sion of  men  by  demons,  would  prevent  our  explaining  away  his 
positive  teaching  on  this  subject. 

It  is  apparent,  then,  that  if  Christ  did  teach  that  Moses  was 
the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  the  loyal  believer  in  him  must  ac- 
cept this  teaching.  At  the  name  of  Jesus,  every  knee  must  bow^ 
and  every  tongue  confess — the  Higher  Critic  as  well  as  the  illite- 
rate peasant. 

Since  this  inquiry  is  a  matter  of  exegesis,  I  now  proceed  to  lay 
down  certain  principles  of  interpretation  by  which  it  is  to  be  con- 
ducted, and  which  are  such  as  to  commend  themselves  to  your 
acceptance.  I  shall  make  some  extracts  from  the  standard  treatise 
on  Hermeneutics  by  Dr.  Francis  Lieber.  Though  the  treatise  is 
intended  to  give  the  rules  for  legal  interpretation  especially,  yet 
the  author  gives  the  following  rules  as  applicable  to  all  interpre- 
tation : 

"Interpretation,"  he  says,  "is  the  art  of  finding  out  the  true 
sense  of  any  form  of  words  ;  that  is,  the  sense  which  their  author 
intended  to  convey,  and  of  enabling  others  to  derive  from  them 
the  same  idea  which  the  author  intended  them  to  convey."^ 

1.  "A  sentence  or  form  of  words  can  liave  but  one  true 
meaning." 

2.  "There  can  be  no  sound  interpretation  without  good  faith 
and  common  sense." 

3.  "Words  are,  therefore,  to  be  taken  as  the  utterer  probably 
meant  them  to  be  taken.  In  doubtfid  cases,  therefore,  we  take 
the  customary  signification,  rather  than  the  grammatical  or  clas- 
sical ;  the  technical,  rather  than  the  etymological." 

4.  "That  which  is  probable,  fair,  and  customary,  is  preferable 
to  the  improbable,  unfair,  and  unusual."  ^ 

^  Lieber's  Ilenneneiitict^,  edited  by    Pi'of.  W.  G.  llaininond.    St.  Louis: 
1880.   P.  11. 
''  Id.,  pp.  108,  lO'.t. 


I  shall  also  cite  a  general  principle  of  great  importance  from 
Dr.  Planck's  Sacred  Philology  and  Interpretation : 

"The  second  general  law  of  interpretation  is  this  :  always  to 
•explain  with  a  view  to  the  spirit  and  mode  of  thinking  of  the  age 
for  which  a  writing  was  immediately  intended  ;  or  to  express  this 
in  clearer  and  more  general  terms,  that  may  always  be  considered 
as  the  true  sense  of  the  writer,  which,  either  alone,  or  at  least  as 
the  most  natural  sense,  could  be  suggested  by  his  expressions  to 
the  men  to  whom  and  for  whom  he  wrote.  When,  therefore,  a 
reader  meets  in  a  Avork  with  ideas  which  he  knows  were  in  cir- 
culation among  those  for  whom  the  work  was  intended,  and  were 
circulated  in  a  certain  definite  form  ;  when  he  finds  there  not 
only  particular  words  and  phrases,  but  entire  representations  and 
series  of  representations  characteristic  of  the  age  in  which  the 
work  originated,  he  may  confidently  presume  that  the  writer 
whom  he  would  explain  connected  therewith  the  same  sense 
which  they  must  first  present  to  his  readers,  even  if  grammatical 
exposition  could  discover  in  his  expressions  another  sense,"^ 

To  get  this  more  clearly  before  us,  let  me  add  this  from 
Whately  : 

"There  is  a  maxim  relative  to  the  right  interpretation  of  any 
passage  of  Scripture,  so  obvious  when  stated,  that  it  seems  strange 
it  should  be  so  often  overlooked,  viz.,  to  consider  in  what  sense 
the  words  were  understood  by  the  generality  of  the  persons  they 
were  addressed  to ;  and  to  keep  in  mind  that  the  presumption  is 
in  favor  of  that,  as  the  true  sense,  unless  reasons  to  the  contrary 
shall  appear.  Some  are  accustomed  to  consider  Avhat  sense  such 
and  such  words  can  be  brought  to  bear^  or  how  we  should  be  most 
naturally  inclined  to  understand  them  ;  but  it  is  evident  that  the 
point  we  have  to  consider  is  the  sense  (as  far  as  we  can  ascertain 
it)  which  the  very  hearers  of  Christ  and  his  apostles  did  actually 
attach  to  their  words."  ^ 

I  may  add  a  note  appended  to  Lieber's  Hermeneutics  by  the 
editor,  Prof.  W.  G.  Hammond:   "It  is  not  always   necessary  or 

^Planck's    Sacred    Philoloiiy   and   Interpretation.      Ed.     by    Turner. 

Edinburgh  :   1834.  Pp.  142,   143. 

-  Essay  on  Christ  and  his  Kingdom,  §4. 


desirable  to  begin  interpretation  witli  the  meaning  of  each  sepa- 
rate word.  An  entire  phrase  often  has  a  definite  and  well-settled 
meaning,  quite  independent  of  the  usual  meanings  of  its  com- 
ponent words.  In  such  cases  it  would  confuse,  rather  than  ex- 
plain, to  attempt  analysing  the  sense  into  as  many  parts  as  there 
are  words  to  utter  it.  The  phrase  or  sentence  is,  in  such  cases^ 
itself  a  unit — the  equivalent  of  a  single  word — as  may  often  be 
clearly  seen  by  translating  into  a  foreign  language,  or  even  find- 
ing a  synonym  in  the  same."^ 

Having  laid  down  the  exegetical  canons  by  which  I  expect  to 
be  governed  in  this  inquiry,  I  shall  next  state  certain  facts  in  the 
light  of  which  we  will  be  prepared  to  apply  these  principles  and 
render  a  proper  interpretation. 

The  first  is  that  the  Pentateuch,  as  we  have  it,  existed  in  the 
same  form  in  the  days  of  our  Lord.     This  needs  no  proof. 

The  second  is,  that  while  the  division  into  five  books  was 
known,  yet  the  Pentateuch  was  regarded  as  one  book  ;  just  as 
the  History  of  Herodotus  is  one  book,  though  divided  into  nine 
books. 

The  third  fact  is,  that  this  one  book  claims  to  have  been  written 
by  Moses.     This  is  proved  in  diff"erent  ways. 

Without  stopping  to  mention  passages  in  Exodus  and  Numbers, 
which  state  that  Moses  wrote  down  particular  transactions  ;  pass- 
ing by,  also,  statements  in  Deutei'onomy  which  may  most  natur- 
ally refer  to  the  writing  of  that  special  book,  I  call  attention  to 
the  assertion  in  Deut.  xxxi.  9-11 :  "And  Moses  wrote  this  law, 
and  delivered  it  unto  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Levi,  which  bare 
the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  unto  all  the  elders  of 
Israel.  And  Moses  commanded  them,  sa3nng,  At  the  end  of 
every  seven  years,  in  the  solemnity  of  the  year  of  release,  in  the 
feast  of  tabernacles,  when  all  Israel  is  come  to  appear  before  the 
Lord  thy  God,  in  the  place  which  he  shall  choose,  thou  shalt  read 
this  law  before  all  Israel  in  their  hearing."  The  expression, 
"this  law,"  here  appears  to  me  to  denote  the  Pentateuch.  At 
verse  24  of  the  same  chapter,  we  have  what  is  probably  an  ap- 
pendix by  some  contemporary  of  Moses  :   "And  it  came  to  pass, 

'  Lieber's  Ilerni.,   n.    106. 


9 


when  Moses  had  made  an  end  of  writing  the  words  of  this  law  in 
a  hook,  until  they  were  finished,  that  Moses  commanded  the 
Levites,  which  bare  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  saying, 
Take  this  book  of  the  law,  and  put  it  in  (or  at)  the  side  of  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  your  God,  that  it  may  be  there  for 
a  witness  against  thee  "  To  my  mind  there  is  here  a  direct  testi- 
mony to  the  wdiole  Pentateuch's  having  been  written  by  Moses. 
Remembering  that  it  is  one  book,  and  that  here,  near  the  close  of 
the  book,  we  have  this  direct  assertion,  I  do  not  see  what  right 
we  have  to  limit  it  to  one  particular  part  of  the  book. 

Again,  though  we  should  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Deuteronomy  alone  is  included  in  these  assertions  of  Mosaic 
authorship,  we  must  conclude  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the 
preceding  books,  for  the  reason  that  Deuteronomy  presupposes 
their  existence,  and  his  authorship  of  Deuteronomy  carries  with 
it  the  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 

To  give  a  list  of  the  references  in  Deuteronomy  to  the  pre- 
ceding parts  of  the  Pentateuch,  especially  the  middle  books,  would 
consume  pages.  There  is  scarcely  a  chapter  in  Deuteronomy^ 
that  does  not  abound  in  these  allusions,  of  which  any  one  can 
satisfy  himself  by  the  use  of  a  reference  Bible  ;  so  that  until 
the  rise  of  the  Reuss-Graf  hypothesis,  Deuteronomy  was  for  this 
reason  classed  by  nearly  all  critics  as  the  latest  book.  To  say 
that  the  facts  referred  to  in  Deuteronomy,  and  which  we  now  find 
in  these  preceding  books,  may  have  existed  in  oral  tradition,  or 
be  drawn  from  some  other  writings,  is  a  gratuitous  supposition, 
for  which  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence.  I  believe  with  Dr. 
Stebbins,  in  his  "Study  of  the  Pentateuch,"  that  the  author  of 
Deuteronomy  was  familiar  with  the  preceding  books,  or  historical 
questions  are  incapable  of  settlement. 

Again,  if  we  examine  the  middle  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  we 
meet  in  almost  every  chapter  with  these  and  like  phrases  :  "The 
Lord  said  unto  Moses ;"  "The  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  saying  ;'" 
"Moses  said  unto  the  people  ;"  "Moses  commanded,"  etc.  If 
these  statements  be  historically  true,  then  the  only  natural  sup- 
position is  that  Moses  wrote  these  numerous  details  of  revelations 
which  God  made  to  him,  and  which  he  gave  to  the  people.   Other- 


10 


Avise  we  must  conceive  a  miracle  of  greater  magnitude  in  their 
reproduction  than  those  which  usually  cause  our  critics  to  be 
offended.  These  are  some  of  the  most  obvious  facts  which  lead 
us  to  believe  that  the  book,  as  a  whole,  claims  to  be  of  Mosaic 
authorship.  To  cite  all  such  facts,  is  unnecessary  to  my  argu- 
ment. I  conclude,  then,  that  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  acquitted 
of  the  charge  of  claiming  that  its  author  was  Moses. 

A  fourth  fact  is,  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  the  current  view^ 
was  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  This  is  the  tra- 
ditional view,  and  is  thus  set  forth  by  Bleek,  one  of  the  most  learned 
of  the  critics  who  wrest  the  honor  of  authorship  from  Moses  : 
"The  prevalent  view  in  ancient  times,  both  among  the  Jews  and 
in  the  Christian  Church,  was  that  the  whole  work  was  written  by 
Moses,  the  principal  actor  in  the  events  related  ill  the  four  last 
books.  We  can  safely  assume  that  this  was  the  view  at  the  time 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  we  find  it  expressly  stated  in  Philo 
and  Josephus.  In  the  Talmud  we  read  that  Moses  wrote  his 
book  [i.  e.,  the  Pentateuch),  with  the  exception  of  only  eight 
pesukim  (the  eight  last,  the  writing  of  which  is  ascribed  to 
Joshua).  This  was  also  the  view  of  the  later  Jews,  and  of  all 
the  fathers  of  the  Church  ;  yet  we  find,  even  in  the  first  century 
of  our  era,  some  differing  opinions  among  small  parties  in  the 
Church,  principally  Gnostics,  who  were  opponents  of  Judaism 
and  the  Jewish  law."  ' 

Bleek  is  certainly  correct  in  stating  thus  broadly  that  it  was 
the  current  view  of  the  time  of  Christ,  that  Moses  was  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch.  I  have  met  Avith  no  other  opinion  among 
writers  on  this  subject  until  recently,  when  the  intimation  has 
been  made  that  it  is  by  no  means  so  sure  that  this  was  the  usual, 
or  at  least  the  universal,  view.  Now  it  would  not  be  necessary 
for  my  purpose  to  show  that  every  man  in  the  time  of  Christ  had 
this  belief;  it  is  only  necessary  to  prove  that  the  majority  of  his 
contemporaries  among  the  Jews,  who  had  any  opinion  on  the 
subject,  and  whom  he  addressed,  held  this  view.  I  may  add 
that  not  a  single  piece  of  evidence  has  been  produced  to  maintain 


iBleek's  Iiitrod.  to  0.  T.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  192.     London,   1875. 


11 


this  intimation.  Still  it  may  be  well  to  glance  at  the  proof  that 
no  other  view  was  known  among  the  Jews.  Josephus,  who  was 
born  four  years  after  the  ascension  of  our  Saviour,  gives  abun- 
dant evidence  of  his  belief  in  the  premises.  He  was  of  a  priestly 
family,  and  had  every  means  of  knowing  the  prevalent  opinion,  and 
no  reason  for  concealing  it.  It  is  unnecessary  to  burden  these 
pages  with  quotations  from  his  writings.  From  the  reading  of  a 
few  pages  of  the  fii'st  four  books  of  his  Antiquities  or  the  sections 
referring  to  Moses  in  his  polemic  against  Apion,  anyone  can  cer- 
tify himself  of  these  facts,  viz.,  that  Josephus  identifies  the  law 
or  laws  of  Moses  Avith  the  Pentateuch  ;  that  Moses  is  a  person, 
not  a  system  ;  that  Moses,  as  a  lawgiver,  is  identical  with  Moses 
as  an  author.  There  is  no  hint  that  any  other  view  had  ever 
been  entertained. 

The  same  affirmations  can  be  confidently  made  in  regard  to  the 
opinion  of  Philo,  the  learned  Alexandrian  Jew,  born  about  20 
B.  C.  A  brief  examination  of  his  life  of  Moses  is  sufficient  to 
show  that  he  considered  Moses  to  be  the  author  of  the  whole  Pen- 
tateuch, even  of  that  pai-t  of  it  wliicli  gives  an  account  of  his 
death.  There  is  not  the  most  remote  suggestion  of  the  existence 
of  a  contrary  opinion. 

If  we  consult  the  Apocrypha  of  the  dates  nearest  the  Chris- 
tian era,  we  find  their  writers  speaking  of  Moses  as  the  Lawo^iver, 
of  "the  Law,"  "the  Law  of  Moses,"  the  "Book  of  Moses."  Now, 
while  these  expressions  might  be  consistent  with  the  supposition 
that  Moses  gave  the  laws  which  Avere  recorded  by  other,  and  per- 
haps later,  hands,  yet  their  most  natural  reference  is  to  Moses 
as  the  author  as  well  as  lawgiver.  The  views  of  the  Talmud- 
ists  are  expressed  in  one  of  the  most  ancient  tracts,  the  well- 
known  Baba  Bathra,  where  the  Mosaic  authorship  is  directly 
asserted.  The  same  mode  of  representation  occurs  throughout 
the  New  Testament.  The  familiar  division  into  Moses  and  the 
Prophets,  or  the  Law,  the  Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  or  the 
other  writings,  had  been  current  for  years.  All  the  testimony 
accessible  to  us  proves  that  the  current  and  only  view  in  the 
time  of  Christ  was  that  Moses  was  the. author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  first  questioning  of  this,  of  which  we  have  any  record,  was 


12 


made  by  representatives  of  heretical  parties  in  the  Church,  who 
based  their  objections,  as  every  one  knows  who  examines  their 
statements,  on  dogmatic  aiid  not  on  critical  grounds.  It  is  not 
until  the  time  of  Aben  Ezra,  in  the  twelfth  century,  that  Ave  hear 
of  any  critical  doubts  on  this  subject,  and  these  extended  only  to 
a  few  passages  which  Aben  Ezra  supposed  to  be  interpolations  or 
additions. 

If  the  principles  of  interpretation  I  have  laid  down  are  correct, 
and  if  the  facts  are  as  I  have  stated,  there  will  be  little  difficulty, 
I  imagine,  in  reaching  a  conclusion  as  to  what  view  our  Lord  held 
and  taught. 

To  aid  us  in  getting  Christ's  general  point  of  view,  I  call  your 
attention  to  the  way  in  which  Chi-ist  alludes  to  the  Pentateuch, 
without  mentioning  the  book  or  the  author.  In  his  temptation, 
he  makes  three  quotations  from  Deuteronomy,  under  the  general 
reference,  "it  is  written."  He  treats  it  as  the  acknowledged 
law  of  the  Jews.  When  the  lawyer  came  to  him,  tempting  him, 
and  said,  "Master,  what  shall  I  do  to  inherit  eternal  life?  he  said 
unto  him,  What  is  written  in  the  law  ;  how  readest  thou  ?  And 
he  answering,  said.  Thou  shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thy 
heart  and  with  all  thy  soul  and  with  all  thy  strength  and  with  all 
thy  mind  ;  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself.  And  he  said  unto  him, 
Thou  hast  answered  right:  this  do,  and  thou  shalt  live."  This  was 
not  simply  an  argument  nd  Jiominem  ;  but  Christ  endorsed  the  truth 
of  the  quotation  from  the  Pentateuch.  All  the  allusions,  direct 
and  indirect,  made  by  Christ  to  different  parts  of  the  Pentateuch, 
produce  the  impression  that  he  adopted  and  taught  the  current 
opinion  that  it  was  inspired  and  authoritative,  and  that  he  believed 
it  to  be,  in  its  origin  and  authorship  and  authenticity,  Avhat  the 
Jews  believed  it  to  be.  Moreover,  his  references  to  Moses  suggest 
that  he  regarded  him  as  a  )'eal  historical  person,  and  that  he  did 
not  use  the  name  as  a  convenient  designation  for  a  system,  or  as  a 
pseudonym.  These  two  illustrations  are  sufficient :  "A  nd  as  Moses 
lifted  up  the  serpent  in  the  wilderness,  even  so  must  the  Son  of 
man  be  lifted  up."  "Now  that  the  dead  are  raised,  even  Moses 
shewed  at  the  bush,  when  he  calleth  the  Lord  the  God  of  Abra- 
ham, and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob." 


13 


It  is  admitted  bj  evangelical  critics  that  these  and  similar  allu- 
?5ions  of  Christ  teach  the  historic  character  of  the  Pentateuch. 
If  by  this  is  meant,  what  certainly  must  be  intended,  that  the 
claims  of  the  Pentateuch  itself,  as  to  its  authorship,  must  be  al- 
lowed, then  I  believe  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  Christ  testified 
that  Moses  was  the  author.  And  for  this  reason,  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch, rationally  interpreted,  makes  this  claim;  and  if  it  be  his- 
torical, i.  e.,  trustworthy  as  to  what  it  asserts,  most  of  all  must 
it  be  so  in  the  matter  of  its  teaching  as  to  its  own  oi'igin.  I  can- 
not therefore  agree  with  the  statement  frequently  made  now-a-days, 
that  since  Christ  asserted  the  divine  authority  and  historical  char- 
acter of  the  book,  we  need  not  be  troubled  about  the  matter  of 
its  human  authorship.  It  is  said  that  there  are  several  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  whose  authors  are  unknown,  and  yet  this  does 
not  aftect  their  historical  character  or  divine  authority.  It  ought 
to  be  remembered  by  those  who  advance  this  argument,  that  these 
anonymous  books  make  no  claims  or  assertions  as  to  authorship  ; 
whereas  the  Pentateuch,  for  what  I  conceive  valid  reasons,  does 
set  up  a  positive  claim,  which  must  stand  or  fiill  with  its  historical 
character. 

But  the  testimony  of  Christ  is  even  more  direct  than  this,  and 
I  shall  now  consider  some  of  his  more  specific  references  bearino' 
on  my  subject.  I  shall  proceed  from  the  clearer  to  the  less  clear, 
and  quote  first  from  the  Gospel  of  John,  where  Christ  is  in  con- 
troversy with  the  Jews.  "Do  not  think  that  I  will  accuse  you 
to  the  Father;  there  is  one  that  accuseth  you,  even  Moses,  in 
whom  ye  trust.  For  had  ye  believed  Moses,  ye  would  have  be- 
lieved me  ;  for  he  wrote  of  me.  But  if  ye  believe  not  his  writings, 
how  shall  ye  believe  my  words?"     John  v.  45-47. 

Now  what  is  the  true  sense  of  this  passage  ?  First,  observe 
that  Moses  is  referred  to  as  a  person  just  as  Christ  refers  to  him- 
self as  a  person.  Observe,  again,  that  Christ  affirms  that  Moses 
wrote,  and  speaks  of  his  writings  as  well-known  to  his  hearers. 
Observe,  again,  that  the  Pentateuch  was  a  book  well-known  to 
the  Jews,  and  firmly  believed  by  them  to  have  been  written  by 
Moses.  How  would  they  necessarily  construe  Christ's  language  ? 
Necessarily  as  endorsing  their  belief  about  the  authorship  of  the 


u 

Pentateuch.  Putting  it  in  another  form  :  Moses  wrote.  What'i" 
His  writings.  What  are  his  writings?  By  universal  consent,  the 
Pentateuch.  Therefore,  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch.  This  is 
clearly  the  opinion  of  Christ.  Dean  Alford  draws  the  only  pos- 
sible inference,  that  this  "is  a  testimony  to  the  fact  of  Moses 
having  written  those  books  which  were  then  and  are  still  known 
by  his  name." 

Let  us  look  for  a  moment  at  these  statements  of  our  Lord  : 
"For  Moses  said.  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother."  Mark  vii. 
10.  To  the  leper  he  had  healed,  Christ  says:  "Go  thy  way,  shew 
thyself  to  the  priest,  and  offer  the  gift  that  Moses  commanded.  "^ 
Matt.  viii.  4.  Where  is  this  saying  ?  Where  this  command  of 
Moses?  In  the  Pentateuch,  a  well-known  book,  believed  to  claim 
Moses  as  its  author,  and  believed  by  the  hearers  of  Christ  to 
have  been  written  by  Moses.  Could  they  doubt  that  Christ 
agreed  with  them  in  this  opinion  ? 

Let  me  now  group  several  expressions  of  Christ,  which  are 
equally  as  decisive  :  "And  as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  rise  ; 
have  ye  not  read  in  the  book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God 
spake  unto  him  ?"  Mai'k  xii.  26  "They  have  Moses  and  the 
prophets."  Luke  xvi.  29.  "These  are  the  words  which  I  spake 
unto  you  while  I  was  yet  with  you,  that  all  things  must  be  ful- 
filled, which  were  written  in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  pro- 
phets, and  in  the  psalms,  conceining  me."  Luke  xxiv.  44. 
"Did  not  Moses  give  you  the  law,  and  yet  none  of  you  keepeth 
the  law  ?"  John  vii.  19.  It  is  useless  to  multiply  (juotations  of 
the  same  character.  Here  Christ  employs  the  phrases,  "the 
law,"  the  laAv  of  Moses,"  "the  book  of  Moses."  According  to 
the  note  I  quoted  from  the  editor  of  Lieber's  Hermeneutics,  we 
are  to  interpret  phrases  as  well  as  words  by  the  usus  loquendi, 
not  by.  mere  grammatical  and  etymological  analysis.  What  did 
these  phrases  and  expressions  mean  to  the  hearers  of  Christ?  I 
have  shown  that  they  meant  not  simply  that  Moses  was  the 
originator  of  the  law,  but  the  writer  of  the  Pentateuch  ;  and  I 
maintain  that  unless  something  in  the  context  or  in  Clirist's  other 
teaching  on  tliis  subject  be  brought  forward  to  modify  these 
expressions,    Christ    must  be  hehl  responsible  for  using  and  in- 


15 


tending  to  use  tliese  expressions  as  they  were  underst'ood  by  liis 
hearers  ;  and  as  they  must  have  understood  them  to  mean  that 
Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  ai*e  obliged  to  con- 
iclude  that  our  Lord  held  and  taught  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch. 

This  conclusion  derives  fresh  support  from  the  fact  that  it 
harmonises  with  Christ's  conception  of  the  origin  and  history  of 
the  Old  Testament  religion  and  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  especially 
with  his  conception  of  the  relation  of  Moses  to  the  religion  and 
history  of  Israel.  It  is  a  leading  principle  of  exegesis  that  the 
results  of  the  special  interpretation  of  a  passage  or  series  of 
passages  must  be  tested  by  comparison  with  the  general  interpre- 
tation of  all  passages  relating  to  the  subject.  I  submit  that  it  is 
evident  to  an}^  student  of  the  Bible,  that  it  is  easier  to  give  a  con- 
sistent representation  of  Christ's  attitude  towards  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  on  the  supposition  that  he  believed  that  Moses 
was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  than  on  any  other  supposition. 
In  many  things  respecting  these  Scriptures,  our  Lord  took  occa- 
sion to  diifer  with  his  contemporaries,  and  it  was  this  utter  di- 
versity of  views  that  intensified  the  hostility  of  the  Jews  towards 
him.  But  in  regard  to  this  fundamental  tenet  of  the  origin  of 
the  Jewish  religion,  there  is  nowhere  a  hint  that  Christ  thought 
the  Jews  to  be  in  error.  He  knew  that  they  believed  Moses  to 
be  the  writer  of  their  most  sacred  book,  which  lay  at  the  basis  of 
their  system.  He  challenged  their  many  perversions  of  this 
book  and  the  religion  it  inculcated,  yet  he  never  corrects  their 
opinion  on  this  essential  point  of  origin.  Not  only  so,  but  he 
uses  the  very  language  that  he  would  have  used  if  he  had  Avi^hed 
them  to  believe  that  he  agreed  with  them  in  their  views  of  Moses 
and  his  relation  to  their  religion. 

It  is  evident,  furthermore,  that  if  we  suppose  Christ  to  have 
been  in  ignorance  of  the  true  authorship  of  this  book,  it  will  re- 
quire much  special  pleading  to  explain  his  language  in  consis- 
tency with  his  general  position  towards  the  Old  Testament.  On 
the  more  extravagant  supposition  that  he  knew  that  Moses  was 
not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  we  have  a  problem  which  I  fear 
no  ingenuity  can  solve,  in  explaining  his  direct  references  to  the 


16 


subject,  and  in  saving  him  from  inconsistency,  not  to  say  contra- 
diction, in  his  conception  of  the  whole  movement  of  the  religious 
history  of  the  Jewish  people. 

As  it  is  clear  that  our  conclusion  falls  in  with  all  that  Christ 
taught  concerning  the  religion  of  Israel,  so  it  is  also  clear  that  it 
is  in  complete  harmony  with  the  point  of  view  assumed  by  all  the 
New  Testament  writers  in  their  allusions  to  Moses,  the  Pentateuch, 
and  the  Mosaic  economy.  This  assertion  I  must  leave  to  be  veri- 
fied by  your  own  knowledge  in  the  premises. 

It  affords  additional  ground  for  confidence  in  the  interpreta- 
tion I  have  reached,  to  notice  that  if  the  principles  of  exegesis 
upon  which  I  have  conducted  this  inquiry  be  repudiated,  or  the 
facts  I  have  cited  be  denied  or  disregarded,  we  shall  be  shut  up 
to  drawing  from  the  language  of  Christ  only  so  much  as  is  yielded 
by  the  most  rigid  grammatical  and  verbal  analysis.  The  results 
of  this  process  would  give  us  a  few  and  generally  unimportant 
enactments  as  the  legacy  of  the  great  lawgiver  and  most  heroic 
figure  in  Jewish  history.  Such  a  wretched  conclusion  is  a  suf- 
ficient refutation  of  the  methods  by  which  it  is  reached. 

Having  now  prosecuted  the  study  involved  in  the  title  of  this 
address  by  a  purely  exegetic.al  process,  and  having  found  the  re- 
sults to  be  natural  and  legitimate,  and  having  tested  these  by  a 
reference  to  the  general  attitude  of  Christ  and  the  New  Testa- 
ment towards  the  subject,  I  am  piepared  to  affirm  as  my  judg- 
ment in  the  case,  that  Christ  must  be  held  responsible,  not  only 
for  the  historic  character  and  inspiration  and  divine  authority  of 
the  Pentateuch,  but  also  for  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  book. 
If  this  be  a  just  exposition,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the 
(juestion  which  more  than  any  single  question  absorbs  attention 
among  Old  Testament  scholars  to-day,  is  not  left  to  be  decided  by 
purely  scientific  inquiry,  but  has  been  settled  for  the  loyal  be- 
liever in  Christ  by  the  great  Teacher  himself.  The  believer  is 
not  at  liberty  to  i-eject  the  Saviour's  teaching,  and  base  his  judg- 
ment merely  on  the  results  of  literary  and  historical  criticism. 
He  is  not  prevented  from  pursuing  the  critical  method  ;  but  in 
this  matter  as  in  all  others  on  which  Christ  speaks,  lie  is  to  sub- 
ordinate the  results  reacheil  bv  his  criticism  to  the  affirmations  of 


17 


him  who  is  "the  truth."  If  what  purport  to  be  the  ascertained 
conclusions  of  criticism  are  antagonistic  to  the  utterances  of 
Christ,  we  must  make  our  choice  and  abide  by  one  or  the  other. 
We  cannot  serve  tAvo  masters.  And  this  is  no  hardship.  We 
hohl  the  philosophic  in<juiier  subject  to  the  decisions  of  the  word 
of  God.  If  he  claims  that  the  result  of  philosophic  inquiry  is 
materialism,  we  do  not  Avait  to  prove  that  his  method  or  principles 
are  at  fault,  and  that  a  true  philosophy  proves  the  opposite;  we 
do  not  hesitate  to  affirm,  on  the  authority  of  God's  word,  tliat  his 
supposed  result  is  false.  In  the  same  way,.  Ave  hold  the  Biblical 
critic  to  the  teachings  of  the  Scriptures,  in  matters  included  in 
his  science.  If  this  principle  Avere  more  fully  recognised,  there 
Avould  be  less  prejudice  against  Biblical  (h-iticism,  before  Avhich 
there  is  such  a  Avide  and  inviting  field  for  legitimate  investigation. 
By  the  results  of  this  science  Ave  have  been  brought  to  a  clearer 
apprehension  of  the  Avonderful  Book,  and  in  many  things  Ave  shall 
look  to  it  for  furtlier  aid.  C.   R.   Hemphh-L. 


DATEDUE 


PAMPHLET  BINDER 

■    Syrocuse,   N.    Y. 
•  Sfockion,  Calif. 


,4»#^^^* 


